Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Why is this idea important?

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Transferring Wealth from the State to the Citizen

In the current debate it seems that everyone has lost the will to advocate significant reductions in taxation.  It is as though victory has been conceded to socialism on the battlefield of the public services.  Is it not now the time for the Coalition to adumbrate the following truths?

 Taxation is evil – it may in some cases be a necessary evil – but it should be minimised at all costs.  Why? – because taxation involves the sequestration of wealth from the citizen by the politician so that the bureaucrat may then exercise choices, notionally on behalf of the citizenry, in how that wealth is to be disbursed.  In practice, the public sector is parasitic on the public purse, as it will always feed itself before it feeds the citizen.  Furthermore, in taking choice away from the citizen and exercising it by proxy, the public sector regularly commits monopsony – the denial of free and fair competition through the exercise of monopoly purchasing power within a rigged marketplace.  And this amounts to an assault on the most fundamental conservative value – freedom of the individual.

 Freedom is only evidenced when the individual can exercise choices in what they do and how they do it.  It is true that we have much freedom in many aspects of our lives – travel, speech, diet and association to name but a few areas.  But, even in those areas where the State exercises fairly loose constraints – through sensible regulation – true choices are only available to those who possess what economists call effective demand or discretionary spending power.  When the State sequestrates wealth through excessive taxation it shrinks the discretionary spending power of the citizen to such an extent that the taxation itself amounts to an assault on basic freedoms.  Further, when the state arrogates unto itself the right to administer the delivery of essential services, then the assault on freedom of choice is even clearer.

 The has been much talk of late about the role of the State a commissioner of services, with competition being provided through a multiplicity of providers, some of whom may be in the private sector.  It is important to recognise that true competition only exists when an individual citizen freely can make a value for money distinction between providers that are vying for trade in a free market place.  As anyone who has seen the public sector tendering process at work will attest, bureaucrat choice is a very poor substitute for the judgement of individual citizens about those choices which are in their own parochial and immediate best interests.

 Socialism has always sought to transfer wealth from rich to poor.  The principle mechanism devised to achieve this has been to tax the rich and to give benefits to the poor.  However, an additional mechanism, the arrogation by the State of power over the delivery of essential services, has somehow become enshrined as an essential component of wealth redistribution policies.  Both of these socialist nostrums should be challenged.

 First, taxing the rich and giving benefits to the poor is a “Revenue” rather than a “Capital” solution.  State benefits will never enrich the poor; they just institutionalise the poverty trap. The Coalition, should seek to transfer wealth, not just benefits, to the poor.  The sale of council houses to their tenants was a classical example of compassionate capitalism and we should urgently search for new ways of wealth creation for the poorest in society.

 Second, if we believe that true freedom is only achieved when individuals have the wealth to exercise free choices about all the goods and services that they might wish to purchase, then the purchasing decision must be transferred from the bureaucrat to the citizen in every feasible circumstance.

 Third, if we believe that capitalism is the preferred method for the delivery of goods and services – because the profit motive moderated by competition is the best mechanism for delivering quality at the lowest cost – then the Coalition have an obligation to ensure that, in every practical circumstance, public services should be delivered by profit seeking private enterprises operating freely within a competitive marketplace.

 These ideas can be unified under a single policy strap-line – “Transferring Wealth from the State to the Citizen”.  We should set out a programme to transfer ownership to our citizenry, of the all those state enterprises which cannot be defended as “Natural Monopolies”.  Every hospital and every school should be incorporated as a limited company with share capital distributed to all in the relevant catchment area.  It would be important to transfer the shares to citizens rather than sell them – millions of citizens would become capitalists at a stroke, able to trade their shares or to retain them as profitable investments.

 Equitable education funding would be achieved by distributing vouchers to parents each year for the purchase of the national curriculum from any school of their choosing. By moving every school to the private sector, the damaging class-divide between the state sector and the independent sector would be removed – all schools including those in what is now called the independent sector would take these vouchers. A continuum of provision from independent schools would emerge, with some charging nothing, some charging for extra curricular activities and some charging significant top-up fees.

 Healthcare, free at the point of need, would be preserved for all emergency and acute conditions, and in a highly subsidised form for all treatment of chronic conditions, by the introduction of a hypothecated tax that funded insurance payments to all patients.  Citizens could choose their insurer from within a competitive marketplace.   Emergency and acute care would be paid for directly by the insurer according to locally agreed schedules of rates for specified healthcare interventions. These rates would be negotiated between insurers and hospital companies within a free market.  Chronic care would be subject to citizen choice of provider and basic care would be reimbursed by their insurer with “Optional Extras” paid for out of advance voluntary contributions or ad-hoc top-up fees.  Thus the principle of free healthcare at the point of need would be retained for all accident and acute care, whilst a regime of differential insurance premiums would disincentivise the adverse lifestyle choices that require greater reliance on the healthcare system.

Why is this idea important?

In the current debate it seems that everyone has lost the will to advocate significant reductions in taxation.  It is as though victory has been conceded to socialism on the battlefield of the public services.  Is it not now the time for the Coalition to adumbrate the following truths?

 Taxation is evil – it may in some cases be a necessary evil – but it should be minimised at all costs.  Why? – because taxation involves the sequestration of wealth from the citizen by the politician so that the bureaucrat may then exercise choices, notionally on behalf of the citizenry, in how that wealth is to be disbursed.  In practice, the public sector is parasitic on the public purse, as it will always feed itself before it feeds the citizen.  Furthermore, in taking choice away from the citizen and exercising it by proxy, the public sector regularly commits monopsony – the denial of free and fair competition through the exercise of monopoly purchasing power within a rigged marketplace.  And this amounts to an assault on the most fundamental conservative value – freedom of the individual.

 Freedom is only evidenced when the individual can exercise choices in what they do and how they do it.  It is true that we have much freedom in many aspects of our lives – travel, speech, diet and association to name but a few areas.  But, even in those areas where the State exercises fairly loose constraints – through sensible regulation – true choices are only available to those who possess what economists call effective demand or discretionary spending power.  When the State sequestrates wealth through excessive taxation it shrinks the discretionary spending power of the citizen to such an extent that the taxation itself amounts to an assault on basic freedoms.  Further, when the state arrogates unto itself the right to administer the delivery of essential services, then the assault on freedom of choice is even clearer.

 The has been much talk of late about the role of the State a commissioner of services, with competition being provided through a multiplicity of providers, some of whom may be in the private sector.  It is important to recognise that true competition only exists when an individual citizen freely can make a value for money distinction between providers that are vying for trade in a free market place.  As anyone who has seen the public sector tendering process at work will attest, bureaucrat choice is a very poor substitute for the judgement of individual citizens about those choices which are in their own parochial and immediate best interests.

 Socialism has always sought to transfer wealth from rich to poor.  The principle mechanism devised to achieve this has been to tax the rich and to give benefits to the poor.  However, an additional mechanism, the arrogation by the State of power over the delivery of essential services, has somehow become enshrined as an essential component of wealth redistribution policies.  Both of these socialist nostrums should be challenged.

 First, taxing the rich and giving benefits to the poor is a “Revenue” rather than a “Capital” solution.  State benefits will never enrich the poor; they just institutionalise the poverty trap. The Coalition, should seek to transfer wealth, not just benefits, to the poor.  The sale of council houses to their tenants was a classical example of compassionate capitalism and we should urgently search for new ways of wealth creation for the poorest in society.

 Second, if we believe that true freedom is only achieved when individuals have the wealth to exercise free choices about all the goods and services that they might wish to purchase, then the purchasing decision must be transferred from the bureaucrat to the citizen in every feasible circumstance.

 Third, if we believe that capitalism is the preferred method for the delivery of goods and services – because the profit motive moderated by competition is the best mechanism for delivering quality at the lowest cost – then the Coalition have an obligation to ensure that, in every practical circumstance, public services should be delivered by profit seeking private enterprises operating freely within a competitive marketplace.

 These ideas can be unified under a single policy strap-line – “Transferring Wealth from the State to the Citizen”.  We should set out a programme to transfer ownership to our citizenry, of the all those state enterprises which cannot be defended as “Natural Monopolies”.  Every hospital and every school should be incorporated as a limited company with share capital distributed to all in the relevant catchment area.  It would be important to transfer the shares to citizens rather than sell them – millions of citizens would become capitalists at a stroke, able to trade their shares or to retain them as profitable investments.

 Equitable education funding would be achieved by distributing vouchers to parents each year for the purchase of the national curriculum from any school of their choosing. By moving every school to the private sector, the damaging class-divide between the state sector and the independent sector would be removed – all schools including those in what is now called the independent sector would take these vouchers. A continuum of provision from independent schools would emerge, with some charging nothing, some charging for extra curricular activities and some charging significant top-up fees.

 Healthcare, free at the point of need, would be preserved for all emergency and acute conditions, and in a highly subsidised form for all treatment of chronic conditions, by the introduction of a hypothecated tax that funded insurance payments to all patients.  Citizens could choose their insurer from within a competitive marketplace.   Emergency and acute care would be paid for directly by the insurer according to locally agreed schedules of rates for specified healthcare interventions. These rates would be negotiated between insurers and hospital companies within a free market.  Chronic care would be subject to citizen choice of provider and basic care would be reimbursed by their insurer with “Optional Extras” paid for out of advance voluntary contributions or ad-hoc top-up fees.  Thus the principle of free healthcare at the point of need would be retained for all accident and acute care, whilst a regime of differential insurance premiums would disincentivise the adverse lifestyle choices that require greater reliance on the healthcare system.

Take the profit out of drugs and legalise them all

Drugs persist as problem because it’s possible for criminals to make a profit out of pushing them. As they are controlled by criminals, the price is such that addicts need to commit crimes to feed their habit. Prohibition is not working and hasn’t worked since the laws were passed. Each year the misery crated rough drug trafficking and misuse increases. I was once told only an idiot keeps doing the same ing in the expectation of a different result so why, other than for political gain, do ministers continue with the same sad policies. legalise all drugs and save the costs of dragging addicts through the criminal justice system, pursuing criminals, policing our borders and responding to crimes such as muggings, burglary, prostitution all related to drugs. Let’s save all this money and invest a fraction back into education to prevent misuse in the first place. For those still intent on taking them, make them free thus ensuring the quality, and sterility of related equipment. Offer rehabilitation to all those in need and finally full life tariffs to anyone who is still determined to distribute without any possibility of reduction of sentence. Once the profit is out of drugs ere will be a much reduced incentive for criminals to encourage addiction- no more pushers at the playground gates or in the clubs. Legitimate free supply means legitimate business for the poppy growers in Afghanistan so they won’t be lining the pockets of the Taliban.

Why is this idea important?

Drugs persist as problem because it’s possible for criminals to make a profit out of pushing them. As they are controlled by criminals, the price is such that addicts need to commit crimes to feed their habit. Prohibition is not working and hasn’t worked since the laws were passed. Each year the misery crated rough drug trafficking and misuse increases. I was once told only an idiot keeps doing the same ing in the expectation of a different result so why, other than for political gain, do ministers continue with the same sad policies. legalise all drugs and save the costs of dragging addicts through the criminal justice system, pursuing criminals, policing our borders and responding to crimes such as muggings, burglary, prostitution all related to drugs. Let’s save all this money and invest a fraction back into education to prevent misuse in the first place. For those still intent on taking them, make them free thus ensuring the quality, and sterility of related equipment. Offer rehabilitation to all those in need and finally full life tariffs to anyone who is still determined to distribute without any possibility of reduction of sentence. Once the profit is out of drugs ere will be a much reduced incentive for criminals to encourage addiction- no more pushers at the playground gates or in the clubs. Legitimate free supply means legitimate business for the poppy growers in Afghanistan so they won’t be lining the pockets of the Taliban.

Change laws on drugs

I believe that by legalising drugs would result as follows

1. Taking the control away from drug traffickers

2. Will have an reduce human trafficking because the financial rewards will be impacted ie drug trafficking to finances human trafficking – human trafficking finances drug trafficking

3. A potential source of tax

4. It will also ease the pressure on the nhs to treat patients with drug problems

5. One also control the quality and quantity of drugs

6. Control of price of drugs which cause also help to reduce certain elements of crime ie drug users who steal to finance  drug habits

But what also needs to go hand in hand with the change of law on drugs is a full and franks education on drugs for all .The public must know what are the effects of taking certains and it must explained in a factual manner and unbiased .

Why is this idea important?

I believe that by legalising drugs would result as follows

1. Taking the control away from drug traffickers

2. Will have an reduce human trafficking because the financial rewards will be impacted ie drug trafficking to finances human trafficking – human trafficking finances drug trafficking

3. A potential source of tax

4. It will also ease the pressure on the nhs to treat patients with drug problems

5. One also control the quality and quantity of drugs

6. Control of price of drugs which cause also help to reduce certain elements of crime ie drug users who steal to finance  drug habits

But what also needs to go hand in hand with the change of law on drugs is a full and franks education on drugs for all .The public must know what are the effects of taking certains and it must explained in a factual manner and unbiased .

Legalise and tax hard drugs

The good guys have lost the 'war on drugs'. The winners are international criminal syndicates which are making billions out of smuggled heroin, crack etc and their local sub-contractors.

The losers are:-

–  the poor types who take up these substances and so ruin their lives;

– the ordinary citizens who are robbed and assaulted in the addicts' quest to service their habit;

– the prisons whose resources are overwhelmed by huge numbers of addicts;

– the taxpayers, who fund this entire, futile exercise.

My proposal is that these drugs ought to be sold via pharmacies and bear a tax similar to those on tobacco and alcohol, thus raising millions for the exchequer whilst driving the drugs barons out of business in the UK. Just like tobacco and alcohol they should be available on demand to anyone over 18. I choose pharmacies because, unlike other retailers, they already have secure storage for dangerous drugs.

Those who applaud the nanny state will protest, insisting that unformed young minds would want to try these things out and would be hooked. Certainly that would happen in some cases – but it happens now, so that is no argument.

Einstein defined lunacy as continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome. In those terms we've been lunatics for a generation. Let's try sanity for once.

Why is this idea important?

The good guys have lost the 'war on drugs'. The winners are international criminal syndicates which are making billions out of smuggled heroin, crack etc and their local sub-contractors.

The losers are:-

–  the poor types who take up these substances and so ruin their lives;

– the ordinary citizens who are robbed and assaulted in the addicts' quest to service their habit;

– the prisons whose resources are overwhelmed by huge numbers of addicts;

– the taxpayers, who fund this entire, futile exercise.

My proposal is that these drugs ought to be sold via pharmacies and bear a tax similar to those on tobacco and alcohol, thus raising millions for the exchequer whilst driving the drugs barons out of business in the UK. Just like tobacco and alcohol they should be available on demand to anyone over 18. I choose pharmacies because, unlike other retailers, they already have secure storage for dangerous drugs.

Those who applaud the nanny state will protest, insisting that unformed young minds would want to try these things out and would be hooked. Certainly that would happen in some cases – but it happens now, so that is no argument.

Einstein defined lunacy as continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome. In those terms we've been lunatics for a generation. Let's try sanity for once.

Repeal the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act

I, like most people, want to minimise the harm caused by drugs to individuals, communities, society and the world.

I am not suggesting legalisation as commercial corporations have shown they are irresponsible making money at the expense of public health. Rather I suggest drugs be decriminalised to allow the people who choose to use it to be able to get it at a fair price with tax to cover the potential problems built into it. Drugs should not be marketed or advertised but adults should be free to make informed choices.

Is it paranoid to suggest that a vulnerable stigmatised group provides a convenient enemy for people in power?

It is up to us, the people to see through this process where the media misreport and antagonise and politicians feel they have to be seen to respond with ill thought out kneejerk responses. Those in any real power consider it political suicide to allow an evidence-based debate and therefore be seen as being soft on drugs. Our current PM was a member of the committee which said "We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma".

All I ask is to carry this through rather than focussing only on retaining power.

Why is this idea important?

I, like most people, want to minimise the harm caused by drugs to individuals, communities, society and the world.

I am not suggesting legalisation as commercial corporations have shown they are irresponsible making money at the expense of public health. Rather I suggest drugs be decriminalised to allow the people who choose to use it to be able to get it at a fair price with tax to cover the potential problems built into it. Drugs should not be marketed or advertised but adults should be free to make informed choices.

Is it paranoid to suggest that a vulnerable stigmatised group provides a convenient enemy for people in power?

It is up to us, the people to see through this process where the media misreport and antagonise and politicians feel they have to be seen to respond with ill thought out kneejerk responses. Those in any real power consider it political suicide to allow an evidence-based debate and therefore be seen as being soft on drugs. Our current PM was a member of the committee which said "We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma".

All I ask is to carry this through rather than focussing only on retaining power.

Decriminalise drugs. Let people grow cannabis .

Let drugs be decriminalised for the end user.  Use the funds saved through the whole justice system, police, courts and prison for realistic help for people for whom their dependency is creating difficulties in their life, including the drug, alcohol.  

The truth is for a large section of illegal drug users the only problem is the fact that the drug of their choice is illegal: this fact alone causes the havoc and can result in a criminal record, even though in every other way people are managing their own lives.

I would suggest the Government should at least listen to the advice from our experts in the field of drug classification and let drugs be classified in a rational way.  Let people grow cannabis under the laws similar to those for tobacco?

The 'It must be ok – it's legal!' headset stems from misinformation: the artificial separation between alcohol and other drugs leads to startling stats like in 2005 25% of deaths of 16 – 24 yr old men and 15% of women of the same age were alcohol related. 

 

Why is this idea important?

Let drugs be decriminalised for the end user.  Use the funds saved through the whole justice system, police, courts and prison for realistic help for people for whom their dependency is creating difficulties in their life, including the drug, alcohol.  

The truth is for a large section of illegal drug users the only problem is the fact that the drug of their choice is illegal: this fact alone causes the havoc and can result in a criminal record, even though in every other way people are managing their own lives.

I would suggest the Government should at least listen to the advice from our experts in the field of drug classification and let drugs be classified in a rational way.  Let people grow cannabis under the laws similar to those for tobacco?

The 'It must be ok – it's legal!' headset stems from misinformation: the artificial separation between alcohol and other drugs leads to startling stats like in 2005 25% of deaths of 16 – 24 yr old men and 15% of women of the same age were alcohol related. 

 

Prohibition Has Failed.

I don't agree that all drugs should be instantly decriminalized. Some obviously have a very profound effect on the user and society as well as being highly addictive, such as heroin. However, Carl (the creator of this request), has laid out many of the key issues as to why this current state of affairs cannot continue.

It is my opinion that the coalition government should commission a thorough scientific investigation of the impacts of drugs, physiologically, psychologically, and to society as a whole. Such a commission should also look at how other nations of handled their 'drug problem' such as The Netherlands and certain South American nations such as Mexico and Chile. Much has already been written regarding these countries new policies, and most of it is positive. It can be read online, often published by reputable scientific investigators and social analysts, not just amateur bloggers. Through the examination of the precedent set in other countries and scientific research that can be undertaken with the support of the government, we can decide which drugs are safe, and which, if any, should remain illegal.

I would hold the coalition to maintain higher standards than New Labour, and to listen to the advice of its scientists, rather than disregarding any findings that it does not approve of, or could be politically controversial.
 

Why is this idea important?

I don't agree that all drugs should be instantly decriminalized. Some obviously have a very profound effect on the user and society as well as being highly addictive, such as heroin. However, Carl (the creator of this request), has laid out many of the key issues as to why this current state of affairs cannot continue.

It is my opinion that the coalition government should commission a thorough scientific investigation of the impacts of drugs, physiologically, psychologically, and to society as a whole. Such a commission should also look at how other nations of handled their 'drug problem' such as The Netherlands and certain South American nations such as Mexico and Chile. Much has already been written regarding these countries new policies, and most of it is positive. It can be read online, often published by reputable scientific investigators and social analysts, not just amateur bloggers. Through the examination of the precedent set in other countries and scientific research that can be undertaken with the support of the government, we can decide which drugs are safe, and which, if any, should remain illegal.

I would hold the coalition to maintain higher standards than New Labour, and to listen to the advice of its scientists, rather than disregarding any findings that it does not approve of, or could be politically controversial.
 

Legalise Ecstasy

I think Ecstasy should be legal. It has been in regular use in this country for a number of years and seems to have had no ill effects. It could be manufactured and sold through pharmacies.

Why is this idea important?

I think Ecstasy should be legal. It has been in regular use in this country for a number of years and seems to have had no ill effects. It could be manufactured and sold through pharmacies.

Legalise Prostitution

Duplicate the treatment of prostitutes that Australia and some other 1st world countries use by legalising prostitution and giving them screening for STIs, protecting them from pimps and drug dealers, and in return taxing their income.

Why is this idea important?

Duplicate the treatment of prostitutes that Australia and some other 1st world countries use by legalising prostitution and giving them screening for STIs, protecting them from pimps and drug dealers, and in return taxing their income.

Repeal the Hunting Act

The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed. The welfare of the fox population and the vitality of the countryside depends on it. It is the most humane form of fox control which is both selective and beneficial to the fox population. The law, morover, is badly written and non sensicle.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed. The welfare of the fox population and the vitality of the countryside depends on it. It is the most humane form of fox control which is both selective and beneficial to the fox population. The law, morover, is badly written and non sensicle.

Repeal Drugs Prohibition

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

Why is this idea important?

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

Repeal Section 44 (Terrorism Act 2000)

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives wide-ranging stop-and-search powers to the Police without requiring prior reason, these are used frequently to stop photographers, campers, members of parliament, cricketers and BBC staff from undertaking their normal day-to-day activities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_44_powers_.28stop_and_search.29
 

Why is this idea important?

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives wide-ranging stop-and-search powers to the Police without requiring prior reason, these are used frequently to stop photographers, campers, members of parliament, cricketers and BBC staff from undertaking their normal day-to-day activities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_44_powers_.28stop_and_search.29